home

Voter ID, Vote Suppression

By TChris, Section Elections
Posted on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 09:32:25 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The evidence is in: voter ID laws suppress voter turnout, particularly in minority populations. But the GOP already knew that.

States that imposed identification requirements on voters reduced turnout at the polls in the 2004 presidential election by about 3 percent, and by two to three times as much for minorities, new research suggests.

< Dallas County Settles Inmate Lawsuit | Another Day, Another CA Prison Crisis >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Voter ID, Vote Suppression | 21 comments (21 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The full paper (none / 0) (#1)
    by roy on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 10:05:53 PM EST
    I think this (PDF) is the study in question.  Why can't the NY Times link to the papers they write about, or at least give the title of the paper?  Lazy.  It'd be much more helpful than making the browser pop up a dictionary entry every time you double-click a word in the story.

    I've only skimmed, but it looks like they actually managed to only measure the reduction in voting by those who could legally vote.  No conflation with illegal voters who were stopped by the ID requirements.  Nice work.

    But this bit jumps out at me:

    This research also is unable to answer the question of whether stricter voter identification requirements succeed at preventing vote fraud. The results, instead, tell part of the story.  It appears that stringent requirements can reduce turnout.  But it remains to be seen whether the reduction in turnout is the price to pay for greater ballot security.  That may, indeed, be the case.  But it is also possible that strict voter identification requirements, designed to promote legitimate election results, could actually undermine that legitimacy instead.

    So they measured the cost, but not the benefit.  I guess that'll always be a problem -- if we could accurately measure the number of fraudulent voters, we would have already disregarded them.

    Fraudulent voters (none / 0) (#2)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 10:50:08 PM EST
    Do you honestly think it's anywhere near 3 percent? As in, 3 or 4 million per election? As far as I know, the only illegal voter caught last time around was Ann Coulter.

    I gotta say, though, if illegal immigrants manage 50%+ voter turnout, maybe they'd make decent citizens after all.

    Parent

    Heck if I know (none / 0) (#5)
    by roy on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 11:11:37 PM EST
    I don't know what portion of votes are illegal, but I do know that in the context of a carefully calculated scientific study, it's bad to just assume that the portion is X.

    If you consider deliberately fraudently cast votes, innocent screw-ups in registration and voting, and "votes" that mysteriously appear in a computer's memory, 3% doesn't seem implausibly high.  But I don't really know.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#7)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 11:53:24 PM EST
    Thanks, roy. I'd been tooling around and come across this summary at the Election Assistance Commission, but I couldn't find the study itself.

    As soon as I read the article I knew that if I wanted the whole story I'd have to find the actual report.

    Parent

    Gabriel - Thanks (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 09:05:53 AM EST
    You really don't need to go very into the summary to figure out the bias of the authors.

    A voting system that requires voters to produce an identity document or documents may prevent the ineligible from voting. It may also prevent eligible voters from casting a ballot. If the ID requirement of a ballot protection system blocks ineligible voters from the polls at the cost of preventing eligible voters who lack the required forms of identification, the net integrity of the ballot may not have been improved.

    Plainer. The integrity of the ballot isn't improved by demanding ID from everyone if some who could get ID don't do so and don't vote.

    Wow.

    Parent

    You're trying too hard to find bias (none / 0) (#11)
    by roy on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 11:11:20 AM EST
    As somebody on-record as supporting an ID requirement, I assumed the author would be biased too.  After reading the report, and understanding almost half of it, I don't think so.  It's not an advocacy piece masquerading as a study, it's just a study.

    Your "plainer" sum-up isn't accurate.  He's just saying it's possible that the cost in legitimate votes may potentially be too high to justify the benefit in preventing illegal votes.  That's not bias, it's common sense.

    Unless you think that losing any number of legitimate voters is acceptable, so long as we prevent at least some fraudulent votes?

    Parent

    roy (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 06:18:18 PM EST
    I think that what I quoted says what it says. There are many other words the writer could have used if he had not wanted to say that.

    And the answer is, yes.

    Parent

    roy/ppj (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 07:13:39 PM EST
    A voting system that requires voters to produce an identity document or documents may prevent the ineligible from voting. It may also prevent eligible voters from casting a ballot [if these eligible voters don't have ID]." [My words]

    This seems reasonable and non-partisan.

    "If the ID requirement of a ballot protection system blocks ineligible voters from the polls at the cost of preventing eligible voters who lack the required forms of identification, the net integrity of the ballot may not have been improved.

    This is a false conclusion, and, as it tends to benefit one side of the "Voter ID is good/bad" argument, its effect is partisan - whether the authors intended it to be or not.

    I can only presume "integrity of the ballot" means that the ballots have integrity, ie., the ballots cast are not fraudulent.

    Any system that blocks ineligible voters from the polls and their fraudulent ballots from being cast, by definition must increase the integrity as a whole of those ballots that are cast.

    That, with ID required, eligible voters may not go to the polls and cast their votes is regrettable and undesirable, but the convenience or inconvenience of our voting system is a completely separate issue from ballot integrity altogether.

    Parent

    We may have a perspective problem (none / 0) (#18)
    by roy on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 08:13:38 PM EST
    Sarc,

    Your analysis makes a lot of sense for your definition of "integrity of the ballot", but I don't think many would read it that way.

    In this conext, I read "integrity of the ballot" as referring to the overall usefulness of the ballot as a way to get good election results -- and I'm using the vague word "good" intentionally.  In that sense, reducing the number of legal votes hurts the integrity of the ballot simply because the remaining votes less accurately describe the opinions of the whole voting-eligible public.  It's like reducing the sample size of a survey.

    In which case, unless enough fraudulent votes are stopped to balance out the damage (and I don't think anyone is assuming a 1:1 ratio), the net integrity of the ballot is reduced.

    Even if your interpretation is correct, I doubt the statement really benefits one side or the other.  The paragraph explicitly deals with weighing lost legal votes against blocked fraudulent votes.  That's what people will take away from reading it.

    Parent

    I see your point (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:07:31 PM EST
    but...it appears your interpretation of the phrase "integrity of the ballot" that they used in the last sentence is that it equals the phrase "a voting system" that they used in the first sentence, or "election results" as you said.

    To me, someone smart enough to do such research would be smart enough to make his point unambiguously, which makes me wonder why they didn't, at least, use consistent terminology.

    Especially, I think (hopefully not naively), because proponents of voter ID mostly just want legal votes. There may be other issues, but removing fraudulent votes - increasing ballot integrity - is (or should be) their main goal.

    All this aside, while I accept what you took away from reading the paragraph, I'm not completely convinced that you are correct in what you say "people" will take away from reading it.

    Integrity to me means being honest, not inclusive or comprehensive. And I think that's what most people think of when they see word and what I think "people" take away when they read it.

    But then, I do have a degree in engineering and so I do (vainly, at times) strive for consistency and clarity, especially when writing.

    I hope this makes sense, the kids need their bedtime snuggle, so I don't have time to organize or proofread...

    Parent

    sense enough (none / 0) (#21)
    by roy on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 10:23:51 PM EST
    You've convinced me that the author either meant it to be read the way you read it, or wrote it poorly.  There should probably be a Latin phrase describing my error in assuming that other people will interpret words the same way I do, but it's a hard problem to avoid.

    Parent
    roy (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 11:40:06 AM EST
    In the cold light of day, I'm not sure I haven't made a mountain out of a molehill here.

    That aside, I think the big issue here is: what is the correct balance of vote integrity (per my definition) vs. voting convenience?

    For example, here in CA, with our motor-voter law, I think it's reasonable to presume there are at least some fraudulent ballots cast.

    As a citizen, I have the right to vote, and implicit in that right is the right to have my vote counted and for it to count.

    If someone casts a fraudulent vote that negates my legitimate vote, then, in effect, my right to vote and for it to count has been taken away.

    (Replace "my right to vote" with "my right to habeas corpus" in the preceding sentence, and watch the fur fly here on TL.)

    Voter ID, presuming it does block fraudulent voting, will restore my illegally removed right to vote and leave everyone else's rights in place - although it admittedly does make exercising their right to vote somewhat less convenient for a small, yet significant, percentage of our population.

    Parent

    Yes? Seriously? (none / 0) (#19)
    by roy on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 08:52:00 PM EST
    It was actually a rhetorical question.  I thought the answer was obviously "no" and was just trying to illustrate my claim that the need to balance lost legal votes against blocked illegal votes is common sense.

    I actually still think your answer is "no", you just don't know it.  Sorry if that's condescending, but let's consider what a "yes" really means:

    You think it's acceptable if the number of legal votes is reduced by 100,000,000, if it lets us reduce the number of fraudulent votes by 1.

    You also think it's acceptable to let just 1 person vote, if doing so lets us eliminate fraudulent voting entirely.

    Now, either your opinion on how democracy works is so far out of whack with the rest of us that I hope you don't vote, or you'd like to change your answer.

    Parent

    If you exclude 100 ineligible voters (none / 0) (#12)
    by Pancho on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 02:21:27 PM EST
    along with 100 eligible voters who are too stupid or lazy to obtain an ID, you HAVE improved the system. The problem that the left has is that about 198 of them would have voted for Democrats.

    Parent
    So... (none / 0) (#3)
    by jarober on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 10:54:04 PM EST
    Ok, then let's eliminate ID checks for age for the purchase of weapons, alcohol, and cigarettes.  Clearly those are all worthless as well.  

    And Another thing... (none / 0) (#4)
    by jarober on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 11:03:44 PM EST
    As to suppressing turnout: It's not onerous to get a photo ID.  Getting a drivers license is easy and inexpensive, and in every county I've ever lived in, getting a non-driver's photo ID was also simple.  

    People who fear proof of citizenship tests for voting are either:

    1. Stupid
    2. not citizens, and don't want to be caught voting illegally

     

    It's about the margins (none / 0) (#6)
    by roy on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 11:25:30 PM EST
    Almost half of those who can vote, don't, regardless of the ID requirements.  That suggests that there are a lot of people for whom voting is just barely worth the hassle.  Make it less convenient by any amount, lose those voters.

    It's not about fear or stupidity, it's about recognizing that proving your identity is more burdensome than not doing so.  Maybe not by a lot, but definately not by zero.

    Personally, I don't vote because I can't do it with my X-Box controller while waiting for the next level to load.

    And you didn't look at the paper -- they didn't count non-citizens.

    Parent

    Do we really want (none / 0) (#8)
    by Pancho on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 12:41:30 AM EST
    people too ignorant to obtain an ID to vote?

    Pancho.... Yes Cisco.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 06:20:33 PM EST
    Perhaps that is the best answer... except I happen to beliebe that the American people in all of their ignorance make some surprisingly wise decisions.

    Parent
    Watch me not care (none / 0) (#9)
    by jarober on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 07:24:45 AM EST
    Voting is not hard, and getting an ID is not hard.  If you think an ID makes voting too onerous, then ask yourself this: do the people supposedly warned off by the ID requirement:

    -- not drive
    -- never buy alcohol
    -- never buy cigarettes

    because there's an ID requirement for all of those.

    Of (none / 0) (#16)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 06:27:58 PM EST
    course Canada, Germany and Mexico all require voter Ids.  They enjoy must really enjoy suppressing the vote.

    Voter ID, Vote Suppression | 21 comments (21 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment